Defendant
Wexford Health Sources (“Wexford”) has moved to
dismiss Plaintiff Donald Haywood's Second Amended
Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). (R. 72, Mot. to Dismiss Second Am. Compl.) For the
following reasons, the Court denies Wexford's motion.

PROCEDURAL
HISTORY

On
March 23, 2016, Donald Haywood, an inmate within the Illinois
Department of Corrections (“IDOC”), sued Wexford,
certain Wexford employees, and several members of the IDOC
medical staff (collectively, “Defendants”) under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they violated his
constitutional rights by exhibiting deliberate indifference
to his mental health needs. On March 1, 2017, the Court
granted Wexford's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First
Amended Complaint without prejudice pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)
on the grounds that Plaintiff's complaint contained
insufficient Monell allegations with conclusory,
boilerplate claims about Wexford's policies and practices
regarding its treatment of other inmates. (R. 66, First Order
7-8.) On March 15, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint, which Wexford has moved to dismiss in the instant
motion.[1]

BACKGROUND

In
considering this motion, the Court presumes familiarity with
the background of this action as set forth in the First Order
and does not recite a detailed background here. The Court
will, however, provide a brief factual background,
particularly as it pertains to the new allegations in
Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint.

Plaintiff,
a prisoner at the Pontiac Correctional Center
(“PCC”) and formerly at the Stateville
Correctional Center (“SCC”), alleges that, prior
to his incarceration, he had a long history of diagnosed
mental illness, including five suicide attempts.
(Id. ¶¶ 1, 23-25.) Plaintiff has been
diagnosed with depression, antisocial personality disorder,
and post-traumatic stress disorder, and as a result, IDOC
classified him as “seriously mentally ill”
(“SMI”). (Id. ¶¶ 26-27.)
Plaintiff alleges that, since June 2014, Defendants have
failed to treat his mental illnesses, and have instead
attempted to punish him when he has requested treatment.
(Id. ¶¶ 140-41.) Specifically, he alleges
that Wexford employees have failed to visit him or provide
him with mental treatment and have instead falsified reports
indicating that they visited him and that he received medical
care. (Id. ¶¶ 42-45, 49-52.) Plaintiff
also claims that Wexford employees have responded to his
requests for medical treatment with repeated hostility-in
particular, he asserts that, when he complained to two
employees that he had not received treatment, one employee
filed a disciplinary report against him and another
threatened to discontinue his prescription medications.
(Id. ¶¶ 62-64, 70-71.) Plaintiff alleges
that his mental health disorders have worsened as a result of
the inadequate treatment he has faced. (Id.
¶¶ 88.)

According
to Plaintiff, many other inmates at SCC and PCC are SMI, and
Wexford is responsible for ensuring that those inmates
receive adequate mental health treatment while incarcerated.
(Id. ¶ 31.) Plaintiff alleges that Wexford
“maintains a widespread custom or practice among its
employees of providing [SMI] inmates with inadequate mental
health treatment.” (Id. ¶ 32.) In support
of this allegation, Plaintiff claims that, although SMI
inmates often request treatment and file grievances in an
effort to obtain treatment, Wexford employees (1)
consistently deny or intentionally and erroneously find that
mental health treatment requests from SMI inmates have no
merit, (Id. ¶ 33); (2) place SMI inmates in
(oftentimes prolonged) segregation; (3) falsify records to
indicate fraudulently that SMI inmates have been provided
mental health treatment; (4) delay mental health treatment;
(5) intentionally exacerbate SMI inmates' mental health
disorders and instigate their triggers to create a pretext
for placing them in segregation, (Id. ¶ 34,
36); and (6) intentionally fail to investigate whether SMI
inmates' alleged misconduct resulted in part or in whole
from their mental illnesses. (Id. ¶ 35.)

LEGAL
STANDARD

“A
motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) challenges the viability of a complaint by arguing
that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.” Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers,
Inc.,761 F.3d 732, 736 (7th Cir. 2014). Under Rule
8(a)(2), a complaint must include “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). The short and plain
statement under Rule 8(a)(2) must “give the defendant
fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which
it rests.” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007) (citation omitted). Under the federal notice
pleading standards, a plaintiff's “factual
allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above
the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at
555. Put differently, a “complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state
a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”
Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). In determining the
sufficiency of a complaint under the plausibility standard,
courts must “accept all well-pleaded facts as true and
draw reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs'
favor.” Roberts v. City of Chicago, 817 F.3d
561, 564 (7th Cir. 2016).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff
alleges that Wexford had policies and customs in effect that
allowed Defendants to exhibit deliberate indifference to his
mental health needs, causing him physical injuries and mental
anguish in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In its motion
to dismiss, Wexford makes two arguments: (1) Plaintiff has
failed to state a claim under Monell v. Dep t of Soc.
Servs. of N.Y.C,436 U.S. 658 (1978); and (2) Plaintiff
is not entitled compensatory damages because he has not
sustained any physical injury.[2] The Court addresses each argument
in turn.

I.
Monell Claim

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Wexford
argues that Plaintiff&#39;s Monell claims regarding
Wexford&#39;s widespread custom and practice &ldquo;amount to
nothing more than conclusory boilerplate, &rdquo; that his
allegations are still based on Wexford employees&#39;
personal issues with him, and that allowing Plaintiff&#39;s
claim to proceed would effectively allow him to sue on a
respondeat superior basis. Plaintiff responds that
his Second Amended Complaint contains specific allegations
that show a widespread policy, including Wexford's
intentional and erroneous findings that requests for
treatment have no merit, its placement of SMI inmates in
segregation, its ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.